Obama Called a man who wished he committed More acts of terrorism Mainstream

And then he tried  removed it from the Internet


Obama citing an old article based on a Press Release from the city of Chicago

Ayers Advised Chicago Mayor Richard Daley On School Reform Issues. Bill “Ayers is now mainstream — an educator with distinguished professor status. He has written three books about education and has advised Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley on the subject of school reform.” [AP, 10/14/01]


Shouldn't we be talking about how Obama's sense of "Mainstream" is out of touch with most of America. I am pretty sure a man who wishes he committed more acts of terror and is an apologist for arab terrorists isn't what most people would consider Mainstream


And why don't we have a Presidential Canidate talking about this?

Over at the Weekly Standard They site a poll which shows most Americans are like me when it comes to oil drilling


When Americans are asked what steps should be taken to reduce gas prices, no consensus appears, but somewhat surprisingly, a majority favor imposing price controls, by a 53% to 45% margin. Americans also support releasing supplies from the federal government's strategic petroleum reserve (58%) and drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits (57%). On the other hand, a majority oppose rationing gasoline (79%), re-instituting the 55 mph speed limit (56%), and suspending the federal tax on gasoline for the summer (52%)...

Ironically, the intensity with which Americans see oil companies as "gas price villains" may be fading a little, according to opinions respondents volunteered in a new Gallup Poll, conducted May 19-21. Over the past year, the percentage of Americans blaming the oil companies for skyrocketing gas prices fell from 34% to 20%; the percentage pointing to oil refinery problems fell from 16% to 9%; and those attributing the increase in prices to problems in the Middle East and the Iraq war fell from 13% to 8%.


I was one of those Floridians who in the days of Gas Prices under two dollars a gallon didn't want drilling of the shore. But now with Prices where they are I want that stuff taken out so we can get some Relief. We have some talk about this from our congressional canidates but we as a party need to beat this in to the heads of ordinary folks. Republicans want to push down gas prices by creating more supply, Democrats want to curb your demand by pushing prices up through taxes.

That to me is a winning message


Miami Herald: 2nd Amendment is 'Mythical Right'


-By Warner Todd Huston

The Miami (FL) Herald let lose with another propagandistic broadside against the 2nd Amendment on Thursday featuring some more moaning and false statements about how horrible it is for America that the misnamed "assault weapons ban" has lapsed. There is much wringing of hands, waterworks, histrionics and over dramatics by the aptly named Fred Grimm here. In "What's a few dead cops to the gun lobby?" Grimm's final pronouncement is that the 2nd Amendment is a "mythical right" but in between there are many misstatements and out right lies.

Grimm starts out putting on some faux "shock" that a modern "semiautomatic assault rifle" he had the occasion to handle was so light. "The shock was in the weight of the thing. Less than six pounds," Grimm writes. And, what exactly does this mean? A butcher knife weighs less then a pound and can kill, too. What does weight have to do with anything?

Then the scare tactics:

I thought how easy it would be for some kid, some 110-pound wild-dog street punk, to heft an AR-6520 and wield it to hellish effect.

OK, so the gun is not heavy. This makes the gun somehow less than safe? Guess what, Mr. Grimm. Cars weigh in the tons and teenagers kill themselves by the thousands each year with them. In fact, they kill themselves FAR more with cars than they do guns. Yes, thousands die a year, Mr. Grimm, even though cars are really, really heavy.

Shocking, eh?

Then Grimm goes off lamenting that police forces are spending money on "assault rifles" because of the lapse of the so-called "assault weapons ban."

No wonder Fort Lauderdale is spending $82,000 for guns designed to kill enemy soldiers. Police know that since the expiration of the federal assault weapon ban, young criminals have ginned up the arms race.

So, Grimm seems to make the claim that "assault weapons" are suddenly everywhere? Naturally, Grimm doesn't bother to give us any facts and figures to buttress this wild claim. He just states it as fact and moves on. He also makes the absurd claim that small time criminals can easily come up with the "three grand" that he says the street price for one has reached, saying that illegal gun dealers...

...Sell them out of car trunks at twice the price to gangbangers, drug dealers and armed robbers who want to upgrade to cop killers. Sell them to felons. Sell them to kids. Sell them to certifiably crazy people as long as crazy people can ante up a cold three grand.

Nice scare tactics and propaganda. Lacking in truth, but nice propaganda.

Then Grimm makes with what he must think are "facts."

In 2004, Congress allowed the ban on assault weapons to expire. The federal law suffered major loopholes, but it still had the effect of tamping down the firepower cops faced on the streets. Since the ban was jettisoned, police groups like the International Association of Chiefs of Police have lamented that the bad guys have the cops outgunned.

But, there is no evidence whatsoever that this gun ban really did have the "effect of tamping down firepower." Even those in the Senate that support this gun banning law said that the rate of so-called "assault weapons" used in gun crime was only at 3.5 percent of gun crimes before the ban went into effect. And that is using their own numbers which are probably suspect because they are being used for their own propaganda.

Three percent of anything is statistically insignificant. In 1999 a study was done by Jeffery A. Roth and Christopher S. Koper of the National Institute of Justice and paid for by the Clinton Administration. The study of 15 states found that there might have been a 6.7% decline in murder rates where the Federal gun ban "could have" made a difference. But, in the end, even this Clinton paid for study admitted that assault weapons had been used in such a tiny number of crimes before the ban that it wasn't really provable that the assault weapons ban had any significant effect at all. Saying, "it is highly improbable that the assault weapons ban produced an effect this large," the report didn't do much to help Clinton prove the ban worked in 1999 and things have not changed that much since.

It should also be noted that the claims of "cop killer bullets" linked with the word "assault weapon" is meaningless rhetoric. The same, high power, so-called "cop killing" bullets that some military weapons fire can also be fired by some hunting rifles. So, to link these high powered bullets only with "assault weapons" as if only those sorts of weapons can use them is disingenuous to say the least.

Our Grimm one ends his propaganda with some suitably dramatic nonsense.

Congress demonstrated in 2004 how much value was placed on the mythical right of private citizens to own semiautomatic military assault rifles.

How much? More than a few dead cops.

I see. So the Second Amendment is a "mythical right," eh? Sorry, but the Founders just don't agree with you, Mr. Grimm.

FL Paper: Americans Want Out of USA, But NO Proof Offered


-By Warner Todd Huston

This is the sort of report that immediately gets my BS detector up. A recent Palm Beach (FL) Post story is trying to claim that Americans are running to Europe to claim dual citizenship because the U.S. is so horrible for everyone here. Yet, even as the story is making the claim that more Americans are fleeing this country for Europe, it offers no statistics to prove it. And the Post even admits that there are none to be got. So, in essence, all we end up with is a claim and nothing but circumstantial and anecdotal evidence with no real facts to prove anything. But this piece does, however, succeed in bashing the USA at every turn.

The first sentence sets the tone of lament that the rest of the piece carries by giving the reader a sense of something lost, a foreboding that foreshadows the end of the prominence of the United States of America.

For millions of Europeans who braved the Atlantic Ocean for a glimpse of the Statue of Liberty and dreams of a lavish life, there was little thought of ever emigrating back.

You can just feel the other shoe about to drop as far as the writer of this claptrap is concerned.

Yet for a new generation of Americans of European descent, the Old Country is becoming a new country full of promise and opportunity... The creation of the European Union and its thriving economy is very appealing for Americans in a global economy.

And there you have it. Americans are streaming to Europe for a better life... at least according to the Palm Beach Post.

So, the Post is trying to sell us this claim that a "growing number of Americans" are looking for European passports so that they can find better "opportunity" in the EU. Yet, as each sentence and paragraph rolls on, the hope that the Post would back up its claim with stats seems to recede ever farther away.

We get meaningless interviews with several Americans who have begun the process to get European citizenship, we get the claims that more Americans are doing it, we get the expression that the grass is greener in the booming EU, yet, no facts and figures.

There is a reason we get no real facts and only claims and anecdotal evidence of this supposed trend. In one sentence the Post admits its got bubkis to prove the wild claim that Americans are in "growing numbers" streaming to Europe to escape our bad American life.

Since the United States doesn't keep statistics on dual citizens, it's impossible to know exactly how many people have applied for citizenship in Europe.

I see. So they have no statistics? None at all? Not only does the Post not have any statistics from America to prove this thesis, they don't even present any from Europe to show that more Americans are asking European countries for dual citizenship.

It appears that it is all just a wild conjecture on the part of the Palm Beach Post.

But there is one thing that this fantasy "report" does admirably. It presents American after American who has given up on this country because it is so horrible to live here. One after another, the folks they interview to present their anecdotal evidence of this so-called trend are heard to bash the U.S.

Having no proof to prove this claim does not really bother the Post when the goal is not to substantiate the premise in the first place. The goal was to bash the U.S. and that the story does quite well, I must say.

Mission accomplished, Palm Beach Post.

Hillary heckler makes a prediction


I posted yesterday that the DNC, for its own sake, needed to accomplish two objectives at its rules meeting yesterday: 1) satisfy the two states, and 2) satisfy the two candidates' camps of voters. Well, by halving the vote-counts of both delegations and by essentially reassigning some of Hillary's pledged Michigan delegates to Obama, it appears the committee failed to do the latter. In fact, many Hillary supporters seem more incensed than ever.

Take Ms. Harriet Christian, for example:



In her last 15 seconds she makes a decent point, though. With the Hillary camp as disaffected as it still is, if McCain can just hold off a third-party spoiler, he can capitalize on this discord and win the election.



<Note to TNR powers that be -- can we embed youtube videos? pretty pretty please?>



More on the Character of John McCain

While this site does have a tendancy to go off the deep end with some truly fringe ideas there are in this mud some true pearls which we must examine about the man who wants to be our next President.


McCain, however, does not think so highly of the POW/MIA families and activists who openly challenge the U.S. government's POW/MIA policy, many of whom walked the halls of Congress during the Vietnam War years demanding America's prisoners of war, including POW McCain, not be forgotten.

McCain, as a member of the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, took the lead in demanding a U.S. Justice Department investigation of the POW/MIA activists and their organizations. He accused the activists of fraud because in some of their fund-raising literature the activists claimed the U.S. government knowingly left U.S. POWs behind after the Vietnam War and that some remain alive today.

McCain openly attacked the activists telling the press, "The people who have done these things are not zealots in a good cause. They are the most craven, most cynical and most despicable human beings to ever run a scam." The Justice Department did investigate the POW/MIA activists and their organizations and found no reason to charge any POW/MIA activist.



John McCain then attacked ordinary Americans for lobbying congress on an issue they believed in. He accused them of committing criminal acts and tried to lean the force of the US government on them. Many of these same people fought for John McCain and his brothers in Hanoi when they were POWs. Did John McCain say "If there were POWS there we would join with you but there is no evidence that there are" if he did we would see a demonstration of character and class from John McCain. Here we see the same John McCain we saw when republicans opposed him on Campaign Finance Reform, Global Warming, And Amnesty for illegal immigrants.


they even paint the picture of John McCain's signature hated issue amongst Republicans (McCain-Feingold) as more crass oppertunism for John McCain


"Republican Sen. John McCain reported a net worth of at least $830,705 but possibly as much as $1.2 million or more, excluding personal residences . . . McCain listed his wife, Cindy, as the source of most of his assets. . . the bulk of McCain's assets consisted of stock in three Glendale firms - Hensley & Co., a beer distributorship headed by his father-in-law; Western Leasing Co., which leases trucks and equipment; and Eagle Enterprises, which invests in real estate and stock." The Phoenix Gazette - May 19, 1987

"So why has Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., gone to unprecedented lengths to block reform of the Senate campaign finance system? Why does he oppose letting this important matter even come to a vote? Perhaps it's because he is a prime beneficiary of the special interest funding of congressional elections. "McCain raised over $2.5 million for his 1986 election . . . more than $760,000 of his campaign funds came from political action committee (PACs) . . . especially disturbing are the contributions to McCain's campaign coffers from PACs outside of Arizona." The Phoenix Gazette - December 8, 1987

"While Sen. John McCain's wife and father-in-law were investing with Charles H. Keating, Jr. in a shopping center, McCain was helping Keating battle federal regulators who questioned his operation of Lincoln Savings and Loan . . . [photo caption] Documents show that Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, and father-in-law, James W. Hensley (second from right) are the largest investors in Fountain Square Shopping Center. Their partnership is managed by subsidiaries of American Continental Corp., run by Charles H. Keating, Jr. (right). But John McCain contends there was no conflict in his helping Keating battle federal regulators." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

"Sen. John McCain had more than a constituent relationship with Charles H. Keating, Jr. prior to 1987 . . . the McCains - sometimes with their daughter and baby sitter - made at least nine trips at Keating's expense from August 1984 to August 1986 aboard either Keating's American Continental Corporation's jet or chartered planes and helicopters owned by Resorts International. Three of the trips were for vacations at Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

John McCain when it was to his benefit rolled in the mud. But when he pitched in to help out a major investment partner of his family and got hit on the nose for it he then decided "If I can't play no one else can" this is another aspect of his Character that serves him poorly as a Senator and will serve us poorly if he is a President.


And when Reporters asked that legitimate question, just as when McCain was asked legitimate questions about his Immigration Amnesty Plan John McCain became a bully

"McCain, in a radio talk-show appearance last week condemned disclosures of his family's ties to Keating as "irresponsible journalism." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989

" . . . both in telephone conversations with reporters and on a live radio talk show, the Republican senator was far from calm. He was agitated. Angry. And the way he dealt with unpleasant questions was to bully the questioners . . . 'You're a liar,' McCain snapped Sept. 29 when an Arizona Republic reporter asked him about business ties between his wife, Cindy McCain, and Keating . . . 'That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot,' McCain sneered later in the same conversation. 'You do understand English, don't you?' ". . . Not content with just bullying reporters, McCain tried belittling them: 'It's up to you to find that out, kids.' . . . McCain wasn't talking to liars. He wasn't talking to juveniles. The senator was talking to two reporters." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989


Again 1989 John McCain, to the same John McCain who calls fellow Senators Sailor words and tells people who don't like his plans to make their own or shut up. There isn't a change in his character it is just bad character and bad leadership


Nor is there evidence of John and Cindy McCain showing compassion or a drive to help people who suffered in Vietnam


"As a 100 percent, service-connected, disabled ex-prisoner of war, I sought help from John McCain when he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and I needed help in regard to a claim for back service-connected disability compensation. I did so because I thought that as an ex-POW himself he could relate to my problem. When I could not reach him via letters to his office, I wrote to his home address. That was a very enlightening experience . . . my letter, addressed to the congressman, was opened by his wife, Cindy. She didn't like what she read, so she wrote me a nasty letter. Apparently John McCain isn't even capable of communicating on a one-to-one basis with someone who was a POW and returned from his experience in far worse physical condition than John McCain returned from his experience . . . M. "Shane" Schoenborn." The Phoenix Gazette - November 4, 1989

We also saw back in the 2000 campaign other demonstrations of the temper and lack of character of John McCain


In fact, Major Burch's organization, the National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition, is hardly a "fringe" outfit. Founded in 1983 as the National Vietnam Veterans Coalition expressly to force the federal government to address the Agent Orange fiasco, the Coalition took the lead in writing the legislation and garnering House and Senate co-sponsors. The Coalition was the only non-chartered veterans organization permitted to testify before the United States House of Representatives.

As Burch says, "Our Coalition was then and is now 'cutting edge.' We want results for our veterans 'now' - while they're alive. We don't want or need more phony studies and delays."

Tom Burch is a former Green Beret and a member of the Judge Advocate Corps, who served in Vietnam and received the Bronze Star in 1968. He is a past department commander of the Washington D.C. Veterans of Foreign Wars. The VFW, along with the American Legion, is considered the most "mainstream" veteran's group.


1) According to Burch, beginning in 1984 when the coalition sought co-sponsors for the Agent Orange bill, John McCain refused to sign on. When Burch and his men asked other members of the House to co-sponsor, these congressmen would invariably ask, "Has John McCain signed on to this bill?" When told that McCain had not it was believed, as often happens on the Hill in matters like this, that McCain was against the bill.

It was only after more than two hundred congress members expressed their support for the bill and final passage was assured that McCain finally agreed to come on board. But McCain's foot-dragging and initial reluctance made the coalition's work much more difficult and delayed the veterans' final victory.

2) In 1988 the coalition led the charge for "Judicial Review," a new system whereby veterans rejected for benefits by the Veterans Administration would have the same right to appeal as Social Security recipients have. Again, the coalition members working the halls of Congress asking for co-sponsors to the bill found McCain in opposition.

The senator from Arizona never signed on.

3) In 1991 when new evidence of living American servicemen missing in Vietnam surfaced, the coalition - in conjunction with those "mainstream" veterans organizations, the VFW and American Legion - led the charge for a Senate Select Committee to investigate whether or not any American POWs were left behind in Southeast Asia and whether some might still be alive. All these veterans groups wanted a senate panel instead of an executive branch panel because no one believed the executive branch could be trusted to investigate itself.

Senator McCain initially opposed the Senate committee. Later, when the Senate ultimately created the panel, McCain was appointed a member.

4) As a member of the Senate POW Committee, McCain "distinguished himself" by repeatedly insulting wives, mothers and children of POWs and MIAs and accusing many veterans groups fighting for the POW cause of "making a living off this issue." He made similar charges in the South Carolina primary when the National Right to Life Committee endorsed Bush: "It is a shame when they take a cause and turn it into a business."

5) Tom Burch's District of Columbia law partner is Adrian Cronauer, made famous by Robin Williams' portrayal in the movie "Good Morning Vietnam." When the presidential campaign was heating up last month, Cronauer asked for a meeting with McCain to discuss veterans' issues. The answer came back from McCain's office: "The Senator says he will not meet with you."

6) And when word leaked out that Tom Burch and the coalition were going to endorse George W. Bush, McCain campaign operative and fellow former POW, Orson Swindle, called Burch and said, "We will destroy you."

While I am quoting from one source on the Character of John McCain we only need to look at his more recent actions to know that this is the MO he has operated in, and while likely operated on in the future.

So with these prior bad acts in mind why should any republican trust that John McCain has the character to lead us?


The Next Republicans: Going Forward

 One of the reasons for the foundation of this new site was the necessity for new thinking about the New Conservatism in the wake of the Bush era. Republicans in the country have tasted little but continued defeat at the polls and a distinct lack of any original thinking out of Republican Washington since the Democrats took power in 2006. Consequently,  many of us have thought about how we go forward to present a new substance to an electorate that has grown exhausted with Republican governance and a Washington Party that is clearly out of ideas. 

Indeed, many are angry at a Washington Party grown too comfortable with the power and privileges of their safe, gerrymandered seats. Nobody now realizes this more than our friend Tom Cole, who found this out in no uncertain terms, when he posted this boilerplate to the NRCC blog page back on May 16th. Tom's meat paragraph is reproduced here:

This week, my colleagues in the Republican Conference announced the American Families Agenda, spearheaded by my colleague, Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas. This new agenda concentrates on the bread and butter issues facing every American. And it recognizes that today, more and more families struggle with balancing work, children and caring for elderly parents. Over the coming weeks, Republicans will be promoting new ideas that give people more personal freedom and lessen the burden of government.

As Mr. Churchill is said to have wryly remarked at a dinner, "This pudding has no theme."

The reaction of Republican activists out in the country to this blog post was, to put it mildly, tectonic. The furies were unleashed and surpassed some 2,500 responses, virtually all of them negative. This post came in the aftermath of the defeats in Louisiana and Mississippi, and could be summed up in one phrase: "not one thin dime!"

The House Leadership, through its own inaction and blundering, had for a very short time, come to symbolize all that was wrong with Washington for Republicans. 

However, for all that, we have to deal with the electorate we have in order to change the Party for the future. The present leadership is emblematic of a Republican Party that remains rooted in the convictions and the certainties of the last decade, and what's more, one that does not ask the voter what they want, nor appeals to their aspirations for the future

That is a cancer, for without vision, the people perish. 

What I'll try to do here is to make some suggestions about Big Terrain Issues and Methodologies. We're all on the same team here, so take this blog entry with that understanding.

People don't hate Government. The only people who hate Government are the Libertarians, and even they call the Fire Department and pay taxes for the maintenance of roads and highways. They recognize that it is necessary. They simply want it to work properly for less of their income. This is simple stuff. We forgot that sometime after, say, 2002, when we started building Bridges to Nowhere. 

We got thrown out in 2006 because people were convinced that Republicans had shot their bolt both overseas (the confidence in warfighting and war-winning) and in the ability of the Republican Party to run the Government. Hurricane Katrina became a metaphor for Republicans in Power. 

We did not get elected in 1994 so that we could head for the hog trough. But that's exactly what we did!

The fact that the Pelosi Democrats have immediately headed for the hog trough is immaterial.

Getting our butts kicked in 2006 was the best thing that ever happened to us, because it began the process of cleaning out the deadwood and the Colonel Blimps. However, when we go to the country at large, whether it is for a State Legislative office or for a House Race, people are going to want to know how we can make government work better for them. That's how you get swing voters to vote for you. 

And you have to be substantive, and well thought out, and on much more solid ground that your Democratic opponent. We do that by polling, of course, but also by getting down into the Big Muddy with the voters and asking them what they want. In too many cases, Republicans believe that technology is a substitute for shoe leather.

Personal experience. We had a state legislative race down here for the Florida House in 2006 in House District 97. Susan Goldstein was the Republican incumbent. Marty Kiar was the Democratic insurgent. Yes, it was a Democratic year, but Marty helped himself by knocking on no less than 20,000 homes over the previous year (either him or his volunteers). Goldstein's last minute negative ad blitz came a cropper and Kiar should win reelection, although the GOP will put up a fight.

Republicans have to relearn the virtues of the Eisenhower era. I liked Ike. Ike meant a strong national defense and an effort to restrain spending. When we lost the Green Eyeshade voter we lost one of the signal differences between us and the Democrats. 

Ike, if you'll recall, served two terms and drove away from the White House an extremely popular man. 

First: spending, spending, spending. Bringing expenditures and outlays into balance will be the chief worry of Republican statesmen going forward. There are several issues at hand: paying for and solving the issue of entitlements, Social Security's long term solvency, the solvency of the Medicare Prescription Drug program, dealing with the long term threat of Chinese naval rearmament and replacing U.S. tactical air assets.

All of these must be paid for. Do not expect an environment of generous tax relief to survive in a universe of such demands on the Treasury. No matter what Larry Kudlow says; that's the environment Republicans must live with. 

Democrats will raise taxes across the board. They control all the strategic committees. They intend to sunset the Bush Tax Relief package.  This will happen whether John McCain is elected or not! The battleground will be on how the money is spent. 

Democrats intend to spend money on their client base. Hogs, meet trough. Get used to that environment. Oh, and they will try to find a way to blame us. We will need to find a way to fight them. 

Republicans have to argue, up and down the ballot, for an Energy policy that calls for solutions based on energy produced here in the homeland. No one likes being at the beck and call of the likes of Chavez and the Saudi Royal Family. We have to argue for growth based on exploration and development. 

Two of the virtues of Ike's policies, learned in Europe and Korea, were Rearmament and Restraint. I strongly suspect we are headed towards a more isolationist sentiment among the electorate. Victor Davis Hanson has touched on this some, but I suspect that even should McCain win, one of the unintended consequences from even a successful Iraq Campaign will be an increased sense of isolationism and alienation from the Europeans. This will effect campaigns as we go forward. The notion of an Atlantic Alliance with the Europeans will not remain sacrosanct among Republicans for long.

Lastly, how the Iraq Campaign is concluded will affect politics in this country for the next twenty to thirty years. If we bring it to a successful conclusion and the Iraqi Government stands up at least a halfway competent regime that can protect Iraq's frontiers, then all will be well. Indeed, Democrats will be chastened by their early forcasts of defeat. When John McCain states that he would rather lose an election than lose a war, I get over my reservations about the man. 

However, if a President Obama gives in to his instincts and washes his hands of Iraq, then Al Qaeda will gain new life and Iran will grow even stronger. Iraq could descend into chaos and genocide, and politics in this country will be poisoned for a generation. 

I would hope that the readers of this post will take it as my humble, first contribution to a way forward. It's not the only way, but it is some highlights of what I see.


Maybe I need to take a break from reading the news for a few weeks.  Take some time to get caught up on cartoons, build a birdhouse, or get those rock hard abs I see advertised on television.  It seems there is so much going on in the world, that a simple mind such as my own, can barely make sense of the deluge of doom, gloom and socialist(D) rhetoric.

Here's what is bothering me folks.

I see middle school kid's given birth control, children on murderous rampages in school halls and terrorist lecturing at Universities.

I see our military banned from entire city's, high-school kids re-writing the pledge of allegiance and G-D completely taken out of all public life.

Social workers and physicians asking children questions about their parents drinking habits and other forms of interrogation, all without the parents knowledge or consent.

I see a criminally dis-honest Socialist(D) hailing the end of the world and only he can save it, if you buy his carbon credits.

I see men marrying men and women marrying women, foreign governments purchasing huge swaths of our country and illegal intruders enjoying the same rights as lawful citizens

Children killed before they are born.

I see hate groups funded by tax payer money, hate groups defended in our courts, unless of course they are Caucasian.

So many things, with the solutions ignored in favor of self destruction.

To be honest, it's depressing.

Being born in 1969, I remember seeing the hippies protesting a war I didn't quite understand, maybe I still don't.

I remember the message of anti-establishment, anti-government, down with oppression!  Fight the man!

I remember seeing the long hair, hearing the great music (the only thing I am thankful to the 60's for), and really thinking that, if we just "gave peace a chance", maybe we could change the world!  Maybe we could all just get along!  Maybe our government is "bad"!

But there will always be those wishing you harm, your destruction.

Its easy for a young mind to be overcome with all of the rhetoric espousing governmental conspiracy's and oppression.

But then I grew up.

Now those hippies are grown up as well.

They went to college, they cut their hair, and they traded LSD and marijuana for xanax and vicodin.  They are now judges, politicians, lawyers, consultants, lobbyist and Presidential candidates.  Most of their minds were infected with Maoist, Stalinist, Socialist, Communist, Marxist ideas.

Nice huh?

Unfortunately, they are now in positions to attempt turning those ideas into reality.  They make sure that every generation is also infected with the sickness that is communism/socialism.  Our children are indoctrinated from the moment they step into a government run school.  There is little you can do about it.  If the schools don't get them the media, via print, television and Al Gore's invention, the Internet will.

Being "anti-America" is "cool" again.  Being an activist for some cause or another is back in style.  Problem is that none of the "causes" are noble, honorable or American.  They are all despicable, treasonous and/or a down right lie.

Being patriotic on the other hand, is not popular.  Not "cool".  Believing in what made America great and striving to continue those same great ideals now makes you a fascist, or Nazi.

To be willing to fight for your country, when your country is threatened, now makes you a murderer or oil mercenary.  

I for one would rather do what is now unpopular and know in my gut to be right.  Patriotic, conservatives are now the counter culture, we are now the minority.

Unlike Michelle Obama, I'm proud of my country, only disappointed in it's direction.

Vote the bums out!

We need to know who we are before we ask if we need to re-invent ourselves.


One of the major problems Republicans have over Democrats is the fact we as Republicans have been united behind ideas we call “Conservative” and Democrats over ideas we call “Liberal”. If you spend time studying political science you learn that the truth is something very much different. Wikipedia provides us with some good starting points for discussion


Liberal conservatism is a political philosophy which generally means combining elements of "conservatism" with elements of "liberalism". As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, it often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres. Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments and this sense of the term "liberal conservatism" fell out of use, and "conservatism" was simply used instead. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered "conservative". In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Australia, in Italy and in Spain). The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, for example in the writings of Russell Kirk).


And this is also important

Conservative liberals differ from social liberals for some main reasons: * First, they are more concerned with economic liberalism, adopting libertarian or neo-liberal policies, while the second ones tend to be more keen on Keynesian solutions and on higher taxes, though still supporting individual liberty as well as decentralization. Conservative liberals, in contrast, are staunch supporters of the free-market, small government, less bureaucracy, deregulation, privatizations and the lowering of taxes, often proposing the flat tax or the fair tax. * Second, they are usually socially liberal on such social issues as same-sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia but may place less emphasis on them than do most social liberals. * Third, they are mostly strong supporters of economic globalization and tend to be more skeptical about international organizations like the United Nations or European Union[citation needed]. Most conservative liberals support the foreign policy of the United States and, in NATO-member states support that political alliance[citation needed]. * Fourth, conservative liberals are often in favor of stricter punishment of illegal immigrants and are usually tolerant but not enthusiastic about multiculturalism, of which social liberals are strong supporters. Conservative liberals often identify as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism, while social liberals tend to emphasize prevention and are more committed to civil rights. * Fifth, historically, conservative liberals tended to be more skeptical about universal suffrage than social or classical liberals[citation needed]. One should not confuse conservative liberalism with liberal conservatism; indeed, the latter is a variant of conservatism. Liberal conservatives tend to be more committed to authority, tradition and established religion, while conservative liberals are supporters of the separation between church and state. However it is possible to classify some parties as both conservative-liberal and liberal-conservative. Conservative liberalism differs from libertarianism in several ways. First it is far less radical in its economic program. Second it is supportive of an active defense policy and military interventions in contrast to the libertarian non-interventionist policy. Most conservative liberals supported the American-led interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan[citation needed]. Second conservative liberals are tough on crime and are more willing to sacrifice civil liberties to fight terrorism and crime[citation needed].

If we were to examine American Conservatism we see a fusion of both Conservative Liberals and Liberal Conservatives within the tradition of American Conservatism. As the two wikipedia articles point out while their are clear differences in both of these schools of thought they do bare a great deal of similarities. Which is why Individuals like Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich were very good at leading American Conservatism forward. However in approaching Liberal Conservatism we also have a third group that is Conservative on Social issues and how the government intersects with Society. This group on the surface one could (and some are arguing this point) has no connection to the other two. But this Social Conservative group comes from an age of our culture where Christianity (their religion of choice) and Protestant Christianity (their particular Christianity of choice) is driven not around the community but around the individual. While Individuals in this Christian tradition do come togther to work on projects, they don't focus on a larger collective identity. Only with Catholicsm (where we see competition with the Democratic party) does the communal side of Christianity grow in Strength. So Individualism united all three wings of American Conservatism. Respect for the family and their ability to act unites all three wings. Though when we get into strengthening the family in areas like gay marriage some aspects of American Conservatism grow weaker. Smaller government unites two outside of the box but when linked with smaller taxes and respect for the family American Conservatism is again united.Respect for the rule of law unites two wings of the party out of the box again, and with some tweaking Conservative Liberals come to the table as they may have issues when Law and Order politics is played with what they deem unjust laws. A Foriegn policy driven on American Exceptionalism unites the Liberal Conservatices and the Conservative Liberals and depending on the mission can unite all of the wings of American Conservatism.

So the key ideas at the largest level which make the American Conservatism we know and love all still sell well today when you start to examine what American Conservatism really is, and where its ideas come from. You see big ideas which the Republican Party isn't running on and you see the Republican party being rejected by conservatives who don't vote for a Obamamination offering Free Healthcare, Free Job Training, and a Free Pony they just stay home. And instead of saying "why are we losing Republicans" we see a Republican party say "why are we losing Americans" When the ideas which made the Republican party great in 1980 and 1994 are still relevant and potent to Americans if we would simply have a party that applies them. The Libertarian Party will peal off some of the Conservative Liberals and the Liberal Conservatives in this election if the Republican party does not get on the Stage at the National Convention and be a American Conservative party.

Syndicate content